send_mail

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses the critical two-step behavior and the need for explicit user consent. It does not mention potential side effects like sending limits or error handling, but the core behavioral requirement is well covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured with clear emphasis on the two-step process. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the essential workflow but lacks details on parameter formats (e.g., email address format, body format) and potential error conditions. Still, it provides key contextual information about the preview and sending phases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the request_id parameter's role, but other parameters like to, subject, body, cc, bcc, and account_id are not described in the description. However, their meaning is mostly self-evident from their names, and the critical request_id behavior is explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool sends an email and describes the two-step confirmation process with preview. It distinguishes itself from siblings like reply_mail by focusing on sending new emails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs when to call without request_id (first call to show preview) and when to call with request_id (second call after user consent). This clearly guides the agent on the required sequence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.